Preach tolerance while being intolerant. Not the best way to go. I think you are smart, and probably have a very good argument about being
tolerant, but attacks are not going to help. Generalizations and 'you people' is only going to diminish your point.

I'm assuming you're male. Would you like a public bathroom that had no gender seperation? Would you feel comfortable with a woman walking into the
mens room or would you use the ladies room? Better question, how would you feel if someone who was physically a man but dressed as a woman walked into
the mens room while you were at the urinal ready to go...what would you do? Would such a person be safe to walk into a mens room everywhere?

In many parts of Asia, its quite common for female cleaners to walk in and out of bathrooms while the males are just doing their thing. This happens
routinely in public bathrooms in China, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, where most cleaners are female. Many years ago I found it disconcerting but
after two decades of frequent travel it means nothing to me now. Just goes to show you things like this don't really need to be a big
deal...

whomever can identify any way they choose as far as i'm concerned but if this confused person is demanding bathroom surveillance, why don't they
just pee in public ??

as for "separate" bathrooms, what is this the 1940s all over again?
here in FL, we have UNIsex bathrooms in all the party cities and there still isn't enough to go around so what exactly is this confused person
demanding ??
they sound like they are begging for an admission into the nearest mental health facility.

I am male and would not care at all if bathrooms were unisex. I also wouldn't care if a man dressed as a woman was peeing right next to me. This
thread took a bad turn. I'm arguing that we don't need to change our language every time someone is offended. I'm not arguing that being gay or
transgendered is wrong. I don't care at all if someone is gay or transgendered.

I don't think gays or transgendered folk would be safe to stroll into any bathroom. That's unfortunate and I don't believe anyone should be harassed
or ridiculed/assaulted for being a little different (excluding people who say 'I could care less'). Now let me ask you something. As a society
should we really be expected to accommodate every weird demand from someone? Change our language? Have a bathroom for every eventuality? I think
not. I won't disagree that we should be more tolerant, but I will never be a supporter of changing everything for a very, VERY select few.

Originally posted by Domo1
This thread took a bad turn. I'm arguing that we don't need to change our language every time someone is offended.

If the people arguing against you were to really address this point, they could not win. That is why they argue other points and will do anything
possible to avoid being put on the spot about this.

I'm not arguing that being gay or transgendered is wrong. I don't care at all if someone is gay or transgendered.

Of course you don't care. Neither do I. Nether do most rational people. But because they can't win a straight-on argument about the sleazy
manipulation of language, the politically correct bigade will constantly try to turn it into an argument about prejudice, trying to maipulate people
via guilt, shame, and wearisome "if you were just smart/educated/brainwashed like me/righteous enough you'd understand" evasions.

If bathrooms hadn't been entirely centred around gender in the first place this wouldn't have happened I don't think.

And if people didn't look at each other's pants areas whilst peeing, then again we wouldn't have a problem. The problem is fear. People fear a person
that has abnormal genitals, and then there's the understanding of gender in the first place. It's not a nice feeling to know that you're not entirely
welcome in either bathroom, and that a basic human function is denied to you in a public place. Going to a public toilet literally risks physical
harm.

So options are:

1. Stop fearing people's pants areas so they can be open about it.
2. Construct a new area to prevent violence that happens.
3. Ban these people (including biological intersex) out of existence.

This would also resolve the fear of being 'seduced' by a person who 'isn't what they say they are' for the most part if we chose option number 1.

Gender people aren't in control of either of these options, the ordinary majority is.

Same goes for language frankly. 'Intersex' is not listed as a gender. This essentially removes some people's ability to be honest. It's not nice to
have to say ... 'I'm a man but ...' everytime you have to address your own gender. So how I see it ... the desired situation from the majority is
'conform to our standards, and we will accuse of lying or misleading whenever it comes up'. I'm putting words in people's mouths but its no different
from a person on the other side of the debate claiming that people want control of language, push people around, or special attention.

If gender persons could live normal unconflicted lives, a lot of these 'special' requests would go away. It's smoke and fire. Special toilets and
language are a request for perosnal saftey more than anything.

And I appreciate when people are nice in these types of threads too ... Most of the time I'm just trying to level the playing field. I don't mind
people disagreeing with me from an informed position ... but it's difficult not to face palm when people just make things up on both sides.

Is your intention to derail the thread? You've claimed many posters in here (the thread) are ignorant. Perhaps it's time you show us why. You've
been insulting, and in my opinion trolling to get people in trouble. Now, give us your opinion or kindly leave. Why is it wrong for others and
myself to take issue with accommodating every nonsense claim to individuality? If you thought you were a grasshopper should you get your own
bathroom? This is a real question, and while it is a metaphor I expect a real answer. Not just, herp derp you hate gay people. Gays and
transgendered people have nothing to do with this argument. It was my bad for starting that in the thread, but I want some real answers from you.
Your three liners are worse than most people's one liners. No substance.

This isn't about accepting someone because they are gay/transgendered/no gendered. No one here is claiming a persons feelings are bad. We are
irritated (or at least I am) that we have to always bend over and take the PC nonsense. I just wonder where it will end.

Give a real response. I do think you're bright as I remember you from another thread.

Perhaps there should be another category called "hybrid" to designate those not identifying with human gender species of either male or female. I
don't like those sub-categories of trans, bi, lez, fags, etc.

Definitions are murky. Especially since several sides of the debate just use whatever term they please whenever they want. Would also recommend
reading a few books before building a mental illness argument.

and i agree with your argument. The English language has roots dating back farther than most of us can trace our own families. There is no
justification to adapt the language simply to suit an individual who is not multiple.

if it/they were one body with 2 heads, i'd acquiesce ... they and them, totally appropriate.
however, plural pronouns for a singular entity is totally unnecessary, intentionally confusing, commonly offensive and completely absurd.

here's one other point that has me wondering ... since this person is an adult, how have they identified themselves throughout their education years?
lots of paperwork require sex identity or has an "other" block been added that i just haven't seen??

Because in the first few posts, several people had stated, "YOU'RE A BOY OR A GIRL!!!!" Including you.

That's what I called ignorant. Mis-concieved notions of what a transgender is.

Furthermore, I have to ask. What is it to everyone if someone wants to be adressed in the gender neutral? Are you really that worried about being
controlled? I see it no different than a man named Samuel wanting to be called Sam.

They can call themself whatever they want. It is none of my business how another human being identifies their own body. It is not my body and all I
need do is respect another human being.I cannot see a problem with a person exploring their identity.

I loved the comments about bathrooms. We share bathrooms in our homes even when we live alone if a friend comes to visit and they are the opposite sex
we don't send them out to the park to use the public toilets just because they are labelled.

Thought about a hate crime that happened in Australia many years ago - a homosexual man was bashed so severely by a group of hateful thugs that one of
them left the imprint of his boot on the skull of the victim. This helped the detectives solve the case. One of the detectives - as butch and manly as
you can get - told me how shocked they were at the brutality. Just consider how much hate filled energy you would have to expend to leave the imprint
of the sole of your boot....

So back to the thread - personal sexual identity is totally up to the individual. I have an animal book all about animal reproductive methods and some
of the unions are amazing. Nature doesn't judge another species so why do we have to keep judging each other - particularly when there is no violence
involved.

an abbreviation of a name is hardly comparable to adapting a language Standard.

if this questionable person wants to devise their own identifier ... submit the request to the proper authority ... dictionaries are updated annually.
lots of e-terms are now listed.

why is it necessary to change a language standard to suit an individual who chooses to be different ??
remember, this is not a gender-confused person, this is someone who doesn't WANT to be identified by the gender in which they present themselves ...
that's a whole new ball of wax.

gender specificity has been part of our "culture" since the very beginning, why change it now?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.